Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 9:00 AM
32 online now:
caffeine, edge, JoeT, kjsimons, Pressie, RAZD, Stile, Tangle (8 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,848 Year: 9,884/19,786 Month: 2,306/2,119 Week: 342/724 Day: 5/62 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Rapid Evolution in Lizards
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 46 of 57 (464656)
04-27-2008 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr T
04-27-2008 6:26 PM


“Evolution does not require genomic change. It can, and does, happen that way -- but it is not required. “

First. You will notice a "dBCodes On (help)" link to the right when you are typing your reply. Please learn how to use the Quote feature.

Second. Please take time to carefully read this thread so that I don't have to keep reposting material.

Reposted from Message 15.

Very often valves are not muscular in their makeup but rather they are mesenchymal cells that are secreting lots of extracellular matrix proteins to make the valves more resistant to stress/strain/force so that muscular contraction- an energy dependent event- isn't required for dividing the regions separated by the valves. If this were the case it would take a tremendous amount of changes in gene expression within the muscle but a more simple event to make more mesenchymal cells and valves.

Reposted from Message 15.

Obviously genetics will be important in resolving what's going on, but I don't think it will be any easier to pin down through genetics whether this is a newly-evolved feature or not. The most definitive result (pseudogene present in originating population is activated in Mrcaru lizards) is the one we are least likely to observe. More likely are subtle changes in promoters that alter the concentration or developmental expression profile of growth factors (or their receptors), in which case we are left with much the same question as with morphological studies.

Reposted from Message 17.

No one claimed it was the result of a novel mutation -- I'd actually be very surprised if it were (although new mutations may well have contributed to the phenoytpe). I expect this is the result of selection for novel combinations of alleles in the founder population, plus developmental plasticity.

So what? THAT'S EVOLUTION, TOO.

Please note that "genomic change" is imprecise and vague. Creos usually mean "nuclear genomic mutation". However, alterations/mutations of promoters and alterations of epigenetics are both forms of "genomic change", in the broadest sense of that term.

When I said that "genomic change" is not necessary for evolution, I was trying to speak creotalk for your benefit. I meant "nuclear genomic mutations".

Sounds like name calling? I just wish I knew what this has to do with what we’re talking about!! Not really, It seems like investigating what this fellow thought is an attempt to distract, deride and catagorize my point of view (a prejudicial statement).

Please take the time to google LaMarck.

I am under the impression that there is no change in the genome of this lizard and that this animal has always had an ileum and a cecum, and the ability to digest vegetation, if it would eat such food.

If this were true, you could live on grass.

This valve is a muscular organ and as is the case with all muscles if there is no stimulous (sic) to the muscle you have disuse atrophy. Hence no muscular fold you get a smooth transition from ilium to cecum and the appearance that no ileocecal valve exists (and by the assumption of the investigators no plans in this lizards genome to make one ). The same type of thing happened in this lizards jaw and skull, I purport, that it used its jaw more and the muscles got bigger therefore requiring the stronger bigger bones.

LaMarck redux. And giraffes have long necks because mom and dad giraffe stretched to get at the leaves at the tops of the trees and -- as a result of this stretching -- gave birth to long-necked baby giraffes, right? :laugh:

Not a fact yet! Gosh, there is a lot of confusion on your side of the fence regarding what is fact and what is theory!

Please see the pictures I posted upthread. It is a fact.

And a VALVE is a body part. A heart VALVE is a body part; a cecal VALVE is a body part.

Maybe someone should look a little harder and deeper in this lizards genus, I think they'll find one.

Another argument from personal incredulity.

Wall lizards of the genus Podarcis comprise 17 species in southern Europe, where they are the predominant nonavian reptile group.

There are over 600 papers written in the last ten years regarding the morphology of this genus.

We know these critters do not have cecal valves.

We’ll see, you just watch, sometime in the not to distant future there will be a follow up article on this lizard on page 62 of the paper in the bottom left corner retracting this ridiculous claim.

Pretty tough to refute an autopsy. (Hint: Pictures posted upthread.)

Thats how it always is with these evolution scientist's earth shattering discoveries; Nebraska man and his cute family of four-from an extinct pigs tooth, piltdown man-man's and ape's skull and jaw hoax, lucy's bones found hundreds of feet apart and in different strattum, neandertal man now known to be completely human, coelacanth a 70 million year old fish that walked out of the water thought to be a missing link between fish and amphibians found in Madagascar fish markets and swimming at great depths in the Indian Ocean. The list goes on!

We try to keep topics narrowly focused here at EvC.

Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, Neandethals, Coelacanth are all OT.

If I've Missed any forgive me, wait forgiving is my side of the fence yours is crushing the weak and destroying those unfit to procreate.

Please try to stay on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr T, posted 04-27-2008 6:26 PM Dr T has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 871 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 57 (546756)
02-13-2010 12:50 PM


Phenotypic plasticity?
Hi, Kaichos Man.

Kaichos Man writes:

Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed...

Our old friend phenotypic plasticity. Made all the more likely by the fact that other lizards belonging to the same family possess cecal valves.

You really like phenotypic plasticity, don't you?

First, phenotypic plasticity is very unlikely to be able to explain why hatchlings have cecal valves, and it seems odd that two islands with very similar environments would select for two very different phenotypes.

Maternal effects are most viable option here. But, the problem with that is that maternal effects cannot realistically explain the origin of the cecal valve in the first Pod Mrcaru lizard to develop one. So, you need two changes: one to explain the first cecal valve in the population, and one to explain how it was passed to the offspring.

Second, youre talking about a family of lizards: the family Lacertidae (70 species). Lumping them all as one creationist kind might explain away the cecal valve by atavism, but then youve got some other things to explain: like two unique reproductive/development modes (parthenogenesis and vivipary); transparent, fused eyelids (genus Ophisops); and air-pockets in the bones that allow gliding (genus Holaspis).

If you feel that all of this is possible within a creationist kind, I guess I have no argument for you, except to ask you what the difference is (in terms of complexity) between air-pockets in the bones and a new muscular valve in the cecum.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


  
DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 48 of 57 (546786)
02-13-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
04-24-2008 7:11 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
I was not suggesting anything. I was just pointing out that although the lizard had changed quite a bit he was still a lizard.

God Bless,

and you only differ 2% in DNA from a Chimpanzee? I do not understand your point.

edit:sorry I didn't realize the topic was this old...

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2008 7:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Flatland
Junior Member (Idle past 2619 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 01-30-2010


Message 49 of 57 (547128)
02-16-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
04-24-2008 7:11 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
quote:
I was not suggesting anything. I was just pointing out that although the lizard had changed quite a bit he was still a lizard.

God Bless,


Just like you're still an ape. What's your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2008 7:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Flatland
Junior Member (Idle past 2619 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 01-30-2010


Message 50 of 57 (547129)
02-16-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
04-25-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Lizard
quote:
Speciation within a species is not macroevolution as RAZD pointed out to me that they are the same thing. If they are the same thing then there is no macroevolution.

Creos look at macroevolution as transmutation or when one critter becomes a totaly different critter. That would be the point that the lizard ceases to be a lizard and becomes something totaly different. To my knowledge this has never been documented, and no evidence presented in favor of such an event. It must be accepted by faith that all the little changes over a long period of time can accumulate to the point that it has to take place.

Quote from Here says there is no firsthand accounts.


So basically this idiot expects a lizard to give birth to a dog in order prove macroevolution. Typical creatard deception.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19892
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 51 of 57 (547169)
02-16-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
04-25-2008 4:39 PM


Use real quotes please, not your opinion of what was said
Hi ICANT,

Saw this in another reply:

Speciation within a species is not macroevolution as RAZD pointed out to me that they are the same thing. If they are the same thing then there is no macroevolution.

By the definition of species, as soon as you have a speciation event you are no longer "within a species" -- it is the line between microevolution and macroevolution.

Before speciation evolution contributes to the development of variation within species.

After speciation evolution contributes to the divergence and differentiation between the daughter species, but this occurs by evolution within each daughter species.

If you are going to attribute something to me, please use actual quotes with references to the actual messages so that people can read the context as well as have an accurate representation of what was said.

Creos look at macroevolution as transmutation or when one critter becomes a totaly different critter.

And as this is not something that is NOT included in the whole science of evolution, it remains a creationist fantasy, based on a false definition of "macroevolution," and it doesn't matter what creationists think because they are wrong.

To my knowledge this has never been documented, and no evidence presented in favor of such an event. It must be accepted by faith that all the little changes over a long period of time can accumulate to the point that it has to take place.

And real world evolution predicts that you will never see this "transformation" occur, no matter how long you wait. In fact, seeing such an instance would tend to disprove evolution than validate it.

Evolution does not occur within individual organisms, it occurs within populations of organisms with variations in their hereditary traits while they remain breeding populations.

The evolution seen in here in a lizard species is macroevolution as defined and used by biologists and evoutionist. It is speciation and subsequent evolution to diverge from the parent population, and it creates another branch on the tree of common descent.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 10:58 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 52 of 57 (547843)
02-23-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
02-16-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Macro evolution
Hi RAZD,

RAZD writes:

And real world evolution predicts that you will never see this "transformation" occur, no matter how long you wait. In fact, seeing such an instance would tend to disprove evolution than validate it.

There is no evidence therefore it has to be believed by faith according to what you said in a conversation about common descent.

RAZD writes:

When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date.

This can be found here. Message 167

In another thread I asked when this had been validated.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 9:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:20 AM ICANT has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 53 of 57 (547844)
02-23-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
02-23-2010 10:58 AM


Re: Macro evolution
In another thread I asked when this had been validated.

Well, Icant, you ask an awful lot of things. However, when presented with evidence which contradicts your claims you simply run away.

It's dishonest and immature on your part.

Frankly, I'm offended that you have the balls to continue asking questions.

What exactly is your end game? You know you are lying. We know you are lying. Who are you trying to fool?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 10:58 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 3:23 PM Nuggin has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 54 of 57 (547876)
02-23-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 11:20 AM


Re: Macro evolution
Hi Nuggin,

Nuggin writes:

Well, Icant, you ask an awful lot of things. However, when presented with evidence which contradicts your claims you simply run away.

I do have obligations in real life that is much more important than posting on EvC.

So I don't run away, I am still here.

Nuggin writes:

It's dishonest and immature on your part.

It is dishonest for me to spend time here if I am not taking care of my obligations for which I am paid.

Nuggin writes:

Frankly, I'm offended that you have the balls to continue asking questions.

You really think it bothers me if you are offended at me asking questions?

Nuggin writes:

What exactly is your end game?

The game of life.

Nuggin writes:

You know you are lying.

I'm glad you can read my mind.

Nuggin writes:

We know you are lying.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

You said we so I assume you include yourself that you believe I am lying.

Since you asserted that I am lying I would like for you to point out exactly what I was lying about in Message 52

Did RAZD say in Message 167:

quote:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date.

Did I ask in Message 42:

ICANT writes:

When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated?

Nuggin writes:

Who are you trying to fool?

I am not trying to fool anybody.

But who are you trying to fool by posting that everything I said in Message 52 is a lie?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 11:20 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 4:06 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 57 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 7:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 55 of 57 (547885)
02-23-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
02-23-2010 3:23 PM


Re: Macro evolution
Since you asserted that I am lying I would like for you to point out exactly what I was lying about in Message 52

I'm not playing the "I didn't lie this one time" game.

Sure, you can find A SENTENCE in which you don't lie.

The point is you've openly and deliberately lied to me and others. You don't come back from that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 3:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 4:54 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 56 of 57 (547888)
02-23-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Nuggin
02-23-2010 4:06 PM


Re: Macro evolution
Hi Nuggin,

Nuggin writes:

I'm not playing the "I didn't lie this one time" game.

You were replying to a specific message when you made the statement that I was lying.

Nuggin writes:

The point is you've openly and deliberately lied to me

Either present the evidence where I lied to you or retract.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 02-23-2010 4:06 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 57 of 57 (548314)
02-26-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
02-23-2010 3:23 PM


Re: Macro evolution
quote:
You really think it bothers me if you are offended at me asking questions?
of course not otherwise you wouldn't have the nerve to say in one breath
Macroevolution refers to evolution above the individual species level
" and then in the next after we've shown you an example that
it's still a lizard
This is why people get annoyed with you and say you're lying although that may not be the case you may just be dense or just enjoy playing games and get some sick thrill out of spouting crap

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 3:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019